Allahabad High Court
SITESHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as there is no cogent evidence against him and he has no prior criminal record.
Summary
The applicant, Sitesh, was named in an FIR along with six others for alleged murder and related offences under Sections 103(1), 109, 351(3), 3(5) and 61(2). The informant‑witness, who is also the applicant’s brother‑in‑law, claimed that eight unknown persons committed the crime and that the named accused, including the applicant, were not present at the scene. The applicant argued that the accusation stemmed from a prior personal dispute and that there is no cogent evidence linking him to the offence, further noting his clean criminal record and that he has been in custody since 30‑05‑2026. The State opposed bail but could not rebut the applicant’s factual contentions. The court examined the FIR, the informant’s statement, and the lack of any material evidence against the applicant, concluding that bail was appropriate. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to standard conditions and a personal bond with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the FIR alleges involvement but the evidence indicates the accused was not present at the scene.
- Whether the prior personal enmity between the accused and the informant precludes bail.
- Whether the accused’s clean criminal record and period of pre‑trial detention justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 3(5), 61(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 109, 351(3)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- lack of evidence
- personal enmity
- clean record
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32674 of 2026
Sitesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shakti Dubey, Vinay Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 105 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 109, 351(3),
3(5), 61(2) BNS, Police Station Bilsanda, District Pilibhit during pendency
of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is named in
the FIR along with six others but from the FIR and the statement of the
informant, who was also injured witness, it is apparent that named accused
persons including applicant did not cause any injury either to the deceased or
to the informant and according to the injured/informant eight unknown
persons caused injury to the deceased and also made assault upon him. He
further submits, even from the record it could not be reflected, applicant was
present at spot.
4. He further submits, applicant is brother-in-law of the informant and due to
previous dispute which is admitted in the FIR applicant has been made
accused in the present matter without any cogent evidence.
5. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the
present matter he is in jail since 30.05.2026.
6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute
the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
BAIL No. 32674 of 2026
2
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
8. However, FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and six
others and eight unknown persons but from the FIR and the statement of
informant, who is also injured witness it reflects, applicant and other named
accused were not even present at spot and according to prosecution eight
unknown persons by causing firearm injury committed the murder of the
deceased and even caused injury to informant.
9. Further, applicant is brother-in-law of the informant and enmity between
both side is admitted. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by
learned counsel for applicant that only due to previous enmity applicant has
been made accused in the present matter specially considering the fact that
prima facie it appears, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant.
10. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present
matter he is in jail since 30.05.2026.
11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
13. Let the applicant - Sitesh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
14. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicant.
BAIL No. 32674 of 2026
3
15. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
September 14, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…